International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research Rule-breaking and legitimacy: a failure of artful navigation? Lorraine Warren Robert Smith Article information: To cite this document: Lorraine Warren Robert Smith , (2015),"Rule-breaking and legitimacy: a failure of artful navigation?", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 243 - 262 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2014-0052 Downloaded on: 22 June 2016, At: 07:36 (PT) References: this document contains references to 80 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 195 times since 2015* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2015),"Self-employment, the informal economy and the marginalisation thesis: Some evidence from the European Union", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 224-242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2014-0184 (2015),"The legitimacy of entrepreneurial mentoring", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 263-280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2014-0089 (2015),"Entrepreneurs’ network evolution – the relevance of cognitive social capital", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 197-223 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-09-2013-0147

Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:115374 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm

Rule-breaking Rule-breaking and legitimacy: and legitimacy a failure of artful navigation? Lorraine Warren Management School, University of Southampton, 243 Highfield, Southampton, UK, and Robert Smith Received 25 March 2014 Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK Revised 4 August 2014 18 October 2014 30 November 2014 Accepted 2 December 2014 Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the tension between rule-breaking and legitimacy for entrepreneurs, who are expected to challenge and change social or business norms. In doing so, they may be presented as heroes in the media, or alternatively, are cast out as villains with attendant negative press with consequent loss of legitimacy. Design/methodology/approach – Through secondary data methods, the paper analyses the case of Vance Miller, an entrepreneur from the North of England who has achieved economic success amid reports of alleged criminality and poor ethical behaviour. Thus he spans rule-breaking and legitimacy. Findings – The paper illustrates how rule-breaking directed towards demonstrable entrepreneurial achievement does not always result in media legitimacy. Miller’s storyline both chimes with and clashes with the discourse of the enterprise culture, providing a cautionary note for aspirant entrepreneurs. Research limitations/implications – The hero-villain paradox remains relatively unexplored in the media, and thus further qualitative research is required, particularly for aspirant entrepreneurs with controversial or criminal backgrounds. Practical implications – Entrepreneurs should question carefully the extent and potential consequences of rule breaking in regard to legitimacy. Social implications – The paper highlights and indeed questions the role of the media in their representations of entrepreneurship, and challenges the valorisation of rule-breaking behaviour by entrepreneurs. Originality/value – The paper makes a distinctive contribution to the literature by examining the relation between rule-breaking and legitimacy for an entrepreneur who is represented negatively in Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. the media, yet remains successful, counter to the heroic stereotype. Keywords Entrepreneurship, Enterprise culture, Media, Criminality, Rule breaking, Vance Miller Paper type Research paper

Introduction There is growing recognition of entrepreneurship as a process that takes place in a social and cultural context, where the interests of the individual entrepreneur, the firm, and a wider range of societal stakeholders are intertwined (Steyaert, 2007; Baron and Shane, 2007; Kuratko, 2008; Welter, 2011). In this context, notions of legitimacy, reputation and ethical behaviour have been argued by some as crucial for the overall success of a growing entrepreneurial endeavour (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Downing, 2005; Jones et al., 2008). Yet entrepreneurs can court controversy when challenging established orthodoxies, particularly where rule-breaking takes place (Panaviotopoulous, 1996; Smith, 2005; Warren, 2007; Brenkert, 2009; Anderson and Warren, 2011), which can raise questions over the ethics of entrepreneurial behaviour. Perceived rule-breaking can also International Journal of “ ” Entrepreneurial Behavior & present dilemmas for the media, who often portray entrepreneurs in an heroic light, as Research Vol. 21 No. 2, 2015 validated societal change agents (Nicholson and Anderson, 2005). pp. 243-262 In this paper we seek to make a distinction between entrepreneurial legitimation © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1355-2554 within sectoral and local business institutions and moral legitimacy. Most of the DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-03-2014-0052 IJEBR current literature is situated in the former. Moreover, we situate both within a 21,2 specific socio-cultural and legal framework. We thus distinguish between the more generic entrepreneurial legitimation and differentially identifiable specific socio-cultural normative legitimation (or demonisation). We do so by analysing the case of Vance Miller, a successful businessman and entrepreneur from an industrial town in the North of England (and thus a sectoral institution). Miller is chosen for 244 this study because he has attracted controversy in the media. Reports of considerable economic success are intertwined with themes of alleged criminality[1] and poor ethical behaviour. Our study is useful because Harris et al. (2009) refer to the entrepreneur stereotype, remarking that “whereas much can be said for not breaking certain rules (such as moral or legal ones), the entrepreneur is often mythologized as a bold, path breaking maverick” and asks how to reconcile these opposing concepts into an “ethics of entrepreneurship”. Not all entrepreneurial rule-breaking is legal or moral though and nor is it is always perceived as heroic (Williams and Nadin, 2010). For example, Williams and Nadin review the significance of informal, or “off the books” entrepreneurship, where economic activity takes place “under the radar” for tax or benefit purposes. There have also been conflations of the entrepreneur with “spiv” or “wide-boy” stereotypes) who often overstep the boundaries of legality (e.g. Kimmell, 1993; Duarte, 2006). Further, there are studies of entrepreneurship that is practiced through outright criminality (Rehn and Taalas, 2004; Bouchard and Dion, 2009; Frith and McElwee, 2008a, b; Smith and Christou, 2009). Finally, there are numerous examples of high profile entrepreneurs with businesses that seem successful and legitimate, at least for a time, but who “fall from grace” (Smith and McElwee, 2011; Warren, 2007) for business-related wrongdoing, with great media attention. Such entrepreneurs navigate a fine line between villainy and heroism in the media, their reputation depending upon how their behaviour is perceived in regard to norms in their social milieu. Takafumie Horie for example, was the “poster boy” for Japanese internet entrepreneurship, until he expanded into too many areas and was prosecuted in a well-documented case of securities fraud, Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. amid rumours that he had aggravated the powerful and conservative Japanese business establishment (Warren, 2007). Of course, many would-be entrepreneurs fail with little fanfare, as there is not much of a market for discouraging stories. Yet some failures, like those of Horie, receive great attention, perhaps because as Smith and McElwee (2011) and Smith and Anderson (2004) suggest, they can be rewritten as epic tales of tragedy, which might well attract readers. Whatever the reason, study of such cases can give us insight into the nature of rule-breaking behaviour and its fit with the mythology of entrepreneurship. Although there are some isolated studies of the link between ethics, entrepreneurship and crime (see Everett et al., 2006; Heath, 2008; Breit, 2010), thus far the tension that lies at the heart of this kind of hero/villain paradox remains relatively unexplored in the entrepreneurship literature. Such cases are important because of the high level of attention they command in the media, thereby shaping, at least in part, how entrepreneurship is viewed by society. Thus, the paper contributes to the literature on rule-breaking by entrepreneurs and how entrepreneurs are represented in the media. The paper also provides a “cautionary tale” for aspirant entrepreneurs, who may compromise their legitimacy through rule-breaking behaviours. A qualitative approach is used drawing on methods of documentary analysis to examine media accounts of Miller from the late 1990s to the present day. Background literature Rule-breaking Brenkert (2009) argues that if entrepreneurs are viewed as engaging in “creative and legitimacy destruction”, this notion would also apply to the law and morality as well as to business forms. However, prior to considering issues of rule-breaking it is necessary to consider the concept of legitimacy in relation to entrepreneurial behaviour (see Suchman, 1995 for a discussion of legitimacy in relation to institutional norms). Suchman identified three primary forms of legitimacy, namely pragmatic (based on audience self-interest); 245 moral (based on normative approval); and cognitive (based on comprehensibility and taken-for-grantedness). In this paper, we use these forms as a theoretical framework to help us analyse multiple and competing legitimacy claims. These require different strategies for gaining, maintaining and repairing legitimacy. De Clercq and Voronov (2009a, b) have differentiated between the role of Cultural and Symbolic Capital in relation to an entrepreneur’s ability to meet expectations about conformity in particular habitus. They argue that entrepreneurs engage in a socially embedded process of pursuing legitimacy, which is contingent upon their expectations about conformity in their chosen milieu. The entrepreneurs simultaneously conform to existing field arrangements (i.e. to “fit in”) and to be perceived as innovators (i.e. to “stand out”). For De Clercq and Voronov this sets up a paradoxical relationship which the entrepreneur has to “artfully navigate the possible conflicting demands to fit in versus stand out through impression management” (or not). Thus domination and being dominant are important masculine traits in broadcasting one’s legitimacy as an entrepreneur (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009c). The notion of institutional profiles for entrepreneurial propensity, consisting of regulatory, cognitive, and normative dimensions, is of interest in relation to this developing argument relating to legitimacy and we argue the enactment of specific institutional differences which contribute differently to levels and types of entrepreneurship (Busenitz et al., 2000). This is important in the context of this study, because the institutional framework of legitimation for a criminal entrepreneur (or someone socialised into criminality) will be different from that of an entrepreneur from a law abiding business background. Also institutional norms amongst small town entrepreneurial elites will obviously differ from those encountered in a corporate Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. business environment. Longenecker et al. (1988) and Kuemmerle (2002) also suggest a propensity for entrepreneurs to break the rules and resist conformity to bureaucratic structures; indeed Kuemmerle distinguishes entrepreneurs, who revel in breaking the rules, from business people in general, who may have to occasionally bend the rules a little through necessity. There is a resonance here with the findings of Zhang and Arvey (2009), who show a positive correlation between rule-breaking behaviours in adolescence and eventual entrepreneurial status, as compared with corporate managers. They raise the question of whether such behaviours persist beyond adolescence, in terms of neglecting or bypassing ethical or social codes. While there is as yet no conclusive answer to this question, these authors suggest that such early behaviours may lower ethical sensitivity in future decision making. They also moot that being alert to ethical components in decision making is perhaps more crucial for leaders in entrepreneurship and small businesses than for managers in conventional employment settings, due to fewer internal organisational controls. Whatever the reason, if rule-breaking is taking place, to take advantage of opportunities, then entrepreneurs, and those who present them in the media, may find themselves in moral dilemmas about how activities and successes are reported. Brenkert (2009) notes that rather than being counter to the stereotype of the heroic entrepreneur, rule-breaking behaviour is actually constitutive of the entrepreneurial IJEBR mythology: the context may change favourably through their actions, and as a result 21,2 their rule-breaking actions may be forgiven. What was wrong becomes right, and what was false true, and the triumphs of “outwitting the system” become part of the mythology, reinforcing the heroic stereotype in the discourse, rather than detracting from it as perhaps might be expected. Of course, if the rule-breaking goes too far, it will not be seen or presented in that light, and will not be forgiven. Clarke and Holt 246 (2011, p. 320) suggest that entrepreneurs negotiate this tricky balance by a process of self-legislation, in which they resist the pull of external, conventional agreement about values and what is of value, relying instead on their own ability to continually judge business life in spite of prevailing opinion and values. As Brenkert (2009) argues, self-reliance persists even where rule-breaking has occurred, providing that the actions are consonant with the virtues and actions of entrepreneurship in the prevailing discourse. However, it must be remembered that entrepreneurship has now become an institutionalised public discourse (Scollon, 2007). Yet, there is no common discursive framework to guide the conversation in the case we examine here. There is no shared framework of meaning, nor any genuine consultation. Boyle (2008) notes that there has been a cultural shift in the media to place business and businesspeople at centre stage, and Rindova et al. (2006), Ljunggren and Alsos (2001) and Guthey et al. (2009) argue that mass media play a powerful role in directing the public’s attention towards particular actors. This has been particularly so for entrepreneurs; Swail et al. (2013), for example, highlight the phenomenon of “entre-tainment”. The media can therefore be seen to be very important in the construction of legitimacy and reputation, issues that are vitally important to entrepreneurs seeking to create and grow new ventures (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Downing, 2005). Brenkert’s reference to the discursive mythology of the entrepreneur is, of course, resonant with the discourse associated with the “enterprise culture” that emerged during the 1980s as a potentially transformative force for economic change (Doolin, 2002; Ogbor, 2000; Lewis and Llewellyn, 2004; Nicholson and Anderson, 2005). In this discourse, the entrepreneur is painted as a cultural hero, legitimised to effect creative destruction (Boyle and Magor, 2008) and is portrayed with attractive sets of characteristics that mirror, and in turn, inform the Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. discourse. There is an implicit assumption in such stories that entrepreneurial behaviour will be conducted and presented in a moral framework (Anderson and Smith, 2007; Fuller and Tian, 2006), and the darker side referred to earlier is not exposed. When media portrayals of the entrepreneur are constructed as heroic (Smith, 2005; Drakopoulou-Dodd and Anderson, 2007; Anderson and Warren, 2011), such “war stories” can take the form of a moralistic eulogy emphasising positive traits and characteristics, and as Brenkert (2009) suggests, reworking potentially negative characteristics such as rule-breaking into the mythology. Yet, as noted earlier, not all entrepreneurial rule-breaking is perceived as heroic or ethical. If actions are deemed unacceptable, or unethical, the tenor of the discourse can change rapidly, with perceived villainy emphasised, instead of valour. The media can embark on a process of vilification of such entrepreneurs, a phenomenon referred to as “the hounding” by Smith (2005), and noted also by Anderson and Smith (2007) and Warren (2007). The hapless entrepreneur may be subjected to a barrage of criticism as journalists assume the voice of moral indignation on behalf of their readership. Readers, and of course entrepreneurs, expect responsible reporting of the “facts”. But as Radu and Redien-Collet (2008) and Anderson and Warren (2011) argue, press reports are social constructions that embody beliefs, values and ideologies in reference to overarching discourses on entrepreneurs, not just “facts”. While there is a stereotypical entrepreneurial identity inherent in the collective discourse (Atherton, 2004; Goffman, 1959), entrepreneurship is Rule-breaking ultimately shaped in ways that legitimise some entrepreneurs while marginalising others, and legitimacy for reasons associated with gender, race and class (Gill, 2012). The media function as “machineries of meaning” (Hermans, 2004, p. 305), where competing discourses are played out for good or ill (Anderson and Warren, 2011; Swail, et al., 2013). These machineries of meaning will contribute to whether rule-breaking is forgiven (or not) and may contribute to a “fall from grace”, and perceptions of the legitimacy of the entrepreneur in question, as 247 well as entrepreneurship generally. As we discuss below, Vance Miller is a self-confessed rule-breaker from a declining textile town in the North of England. For example, in his biography, he refers to a colourful criminal past involving drug and diamond smuggling. Later, he set up a large kitchen installation venture drawing on an international supply chain that he created, and in doing so, attracted the attention of the press and national television. According to the media, he was unable to leave his criminal past behind in this new period in his life, and further, it was alleged that he did not behave in an ethical manner in his everyday business operations. His unusual profile therefore presents a distinctive opportunity to examine how rule-breaking and legitimacy played out in the storyline constructed round him in the media.

Methodology Thus, to explore Miller’s rule-breaking behaviour and the connection with the legitimacy of his entrepreneurial activity, we examine media reports on Miller’s career, including press articles, his biography, TV documentaries and Miller’s own web site. The main methodological approach used in the study is that of documentary analysis (Platt, 1981; Scott, 1990; Wesley, 2010). Approaches that rely on analysing discursive devices from secondary data sources have been around for some time (Ljunggren and Alsos, 2001; Nicholson and Anderson, 2005; Brown, 2005; Duarte et al., 2005; Amernic and Craig, 2006; Warren, 2007; Radu and Redien-Collet, 2008; Anderson and Warren, 2011). Fielding and Fielding (2000) argue that such qualitative data offers rich insights

Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. into the social world particularly in relation to researching sensitive topics and/or hard-to-reach actors. The secondary data approach has been advocated for use in ethics-related research too, by Cowton (1998) who articulated the problem of obtaining valid and reliable primary data by other methods. We conduct a close reading (Amernic and Craig, 2006) of texts documenting the emerging story of Vance Miller. In practical terms, we carry out: • an analysis of texts as they emerged in the press over a ten year period; and • an analysis of the links between these texts and discourses of entrepreneurship with particular reference to rule-breaking. The newspaper articles consisted of 104 newspaper articles relating to Vance Miller located via a standard LexisNexis® search of local and national newspapers in England. The search located 177 such articles but the 73 not used were repeated articles in other newspapers. The resultant articles were a mix from national English newspapers, and influential regional local papers such as the Manchester Evening News, which continues to have high circulation figures in the North of England. These were then subjected to a close reading (Amernic and Craig, 2006) and in the manner advised by Miles and Huberman (1994) we coded for entrepreneurial buzz words and those associated with rule-breaking, criminality or unethical behaviour. Conducting a IJEBR close reading also entails keeping one’s self-grounded by engaging in constant 21,2 comparative analysis (Glasser, 1965) to allow one to move from data to findings. We did this by writing the phrases on post-it notes and arranging and rearranging them into the emerging categories. Both authors did this separately and compared notes. Through this iterative process, we were able to authenticate and triangulate the information by examining other data sources in the same way in the form of Miller’s 248 biography (Newton, 2009), TV programmes and other material from websites. In all we spent 96 hours in total reading the biography of Miller, 48 hours conducting the qualitative coding and a further 36 hours watching the documentaries. In the process we read closely into over 250,000 words between the biography and the 104 newspaper cuttings.

Vance Miller as hero or villain: analysis After presenting a simple timeline (Table I), this section first analyses the negative media coverage in regard to Miller (press reports and two TV documentaries), then goes on to analyse a more positive view, mainly emanating from sources controlled by Miller as he musters narrative resources and techniques to construct an alternative account. Throughout the analysis, our task is not to delineate a “correct” account, but instead to examine and interpret the discursive devices that arise in the rhetorical twists and turns over time. We stress that it is not our objective to articulate, nor mediate on the differences between criminal, unethical, negative and illegitimate behaviours. These concepts are NOT the same as each other and each influences perceptions of legitimacy. Obviously there are many possible interpretations of the Vance Miller story. We adhere to our authorial task of exploring perceptions of morality, criminality and legitimacy as presented in the media. We also acknowledge that in retelling the Miller story, much of the material which demonstrates the rule breaking and legitimacy work is of necessity descriptive in nature.

Vance Miller: rule-breaking behaviour and legitimacy Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. Table I presents a summary of a time line of key events in Miller’s business life from 1995 to present. The presented timeline was arrived at via our reading of media representation of such events. We acknowledge that it is not an unbiased representation. Up until 2008, the tone of the stories told is very negative, focusing on poor trading practices, shoddy goods, and alleged criminal activities past and present. The press tone highlights Miller’s alleged or perceived rule-breaking behaviour, alluding to his criminal past and connecting that to unethical trading behaviour. Additionally, there is at times, a self-congratulatory note relating to the role the press played in exposing the “Kitchen Gangster”. Although Miller was sometimes portrayed in favourable “heroic” terms, as having built up his business from scratch and as a “local hero” providing jobs, overall the tone of the newspaper articles presented a complex mix of entrepreneurship and criminality that cast doubt on the legitimacy of Miller, and thereby also his trading organisation. A very powerful identity was emerging from the data: a charismatic man who had grown a large business empire from scratch, but a complex character embedded in veiled references to a criminal past, and attributions of negative traits and behavioural characteristics. In Table II therefore, we discuss the media strategies that emphasised rule-breaking, and show how such strategies are used to undermine Miller’s legitimacy (Table III). 1995 Convicted at Manchester Crown Court on two counts of false imprisonment, one of Rule-breaking kidnapping and one of affray – sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for allegedly and legitimacy kidnapping a couple who had stolen a kitchen unit. Prior to this report we can find no trace of Miller in the press/internet 1996 Appeals against sentence 1999 Miller as a manager of a kitchen company supplying shoddy goods. The owner of the company [a former girlfriend] denies Miller is employed there or is connected to a succession of failed companies. Thus begins the press “shadow narrative” of Miller 249 the villain 2001-2 A rash of articles on incidents and shoddy kitchens allude to an earlier criminal past, including kidnapping, assault, drug and diamond smuggling and contempt of court. These articles culminate with Oldham Trading Standards going to court in 2002 to obtain a “Stop Now Order” against Miller’s trading activities. He is the first ever British businessman subjected to such an order. Miller did not stop and eventually was brought to for contempt of court for which he received an eight month sentence. The Press had a “field day” but two weeks later on appeal Miller was released from jail on the proviso that he employ a business consultant. We are witnessing an entrepreneurs struggle against the establishment 2004-2007 In this time-line we encounter the media narration of Miller the shady entrepreneur with links to organised crime. We hear Of two arson attacks at his houses which caused £80,000 worth of damage to uninsured properties. His BMW was smashed up and in the ensuing police investigation there are allusions to shadowy links to the Oldham Underworld. In response, Miller offers £50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the individuals concerned. There are death threats to Miller and gunmen threaten employees at his factory. He suffers “Armed robberies” on his vans. Threatening graffiti is daubed on buildings. The inference is that Miller is a gangster Miller is forced to stop selling mini-moto motor cycles described as death traps because they do not comply with UK Safety Regulations Custom officials seize £66,000 in cash from him as he boarded a flight to China on suspicion of it being illegal income under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002 Miller is fined £16,000 for illegally dumping and torching trade waste 2008 In 2008 the new charges were dismissed and Oldham Trading Standards and the press onwards faced recriminations

Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. The two guns were toys The money (£66,000) seized on suspicion of being the proceeds of crime was returned to Miller A Freedom of Information request revealed that the reported 50,000 customer complaints were a gross exaggeration. The new data indicated that in 2005 only 73 complaints were received. In 2004 it was 83. This level of complaint was par for the course in relation to competitors One of the kidnapping charges was for detaining a gang who robbed his mother Miller hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to pursue the newspapers who maligned him Miller alleges that his problems stem from a conspiracy theory that the Council tried to bankrupt him and buy his factory site Oldham Trading Standards blame the press and vice versa In 2010 the case against Miller collapsed and the senior manager at Oldham Trading Table I. Standards was suspended and later dismissed (Newton, 2009) Key events

It is clear that the media delegitimisation strategies and Miller’s counter strategies (presented below) both have a basis in the pragmatic, moral and normative/cognitive categories discussed by De Clercq and Voronov (2009a). Many of Miller’s problems were attributable to well-documented elements of his chosen business model, which, IJEBR Media strategy Descriptor Outcome 21,2 Negative trait/ Crafty; Exploitative; Violent; Persistent; The negative litany of accusations paint behavioural Manipulative; Unscrupulous; Cunning; a picture of an individual accused of descriptors Boastful, Cheat; Con-Man; Con- being the most roguish of rogue traders; Merchant; Villain; Rogue; Shyster; the worst rogue-trader in Britain; and the Smug; Shameless; Snake; Disgusting; UK’s most complained about 250 Dodgy; Slinky; Sleazy; Blatant; Ruthless; Independent Trader. These are all Defiant; Cocky; Grinning; Arrogant; morally laden accusations used to Rude; Nasty; Unrepentant; Swindler; destabilise Millers attempts at claiming Notorious; Shark; Confidence-trickster; entrepreneurial legitimacy Crooked; Cagey; Greedy;aRat;a Braggart;aCowboy;aPlunderer; and Chancer Personal attacks Accusations of being – a convicted These insults make use of linguistic and character criminal; having a strong character, collocation or longer descriptive assassinations having a big ego; a kitchen conman;a sentences to vilify by insinuation. Take bodging builder; dodgy trader; rogue- the form of creative tabloid writing or trader; cowboy-trader; rogue- subtle character assassination e.g. businessman; rogue-operator;a pouring scorn on claims to be legitimate; notorious crook;amillionaire-rogue of being a nasty piece of work. Miller is trader; and rogue salesman; a flash- described as – a businessman with dark rogue; controversial businessman; and past; of having beat up a complaining colourful character. They refer to customer and smashing up his jeep. behaviours such as – being vile; There is mention of a feud with other performing histrionics; blaming businessmen; of being abusive over the everybody-else but himself,orlaughing at telephone; playing the clown; and of never the law; thumbing one’s nose up; ripping being far from trouble. These attacks off customers; robbing hard working vilify the person via the use of accepted families; and of performing dubious negative metaphors. They also negate business activities. On a personal front he the legitimacy of Miller to be praised for is labelled a Menacing Northern his entrepreneurial achievements. Bonehead; Remorseless rip-off-merchant; Although the accusations are based on Bully-boy; One-man-scam-wave; Muscle morally suspect of criminal behaviours

Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. bound rogue;Ofmaking a killing; earning they are actually cognitive and dirty dosh; raking in the money; having normative in their application because an appalling lack of commercial morality; they influence how readers come to of having bundles of readies stuffed into comprehend Miller as a person biscuit tins Symbolic Relating to exhibitionism and of living The inference is there is no smoke signifiers the luxury life of a boss with a dark past. without fire. This is a clever slur Much is made of luxury and lavish because it invokes “myopic capitalist lifestyle and of having a plush detached imagery” which can be used to house and of driving a top of the range legitimise or demonise its bearer BMW dependent upon whether one wished to cast them as a heroic entrepreneur or a criminal (Smith, 2003; Smith and Anderson, 2003) Vilifying his Thus – Rogue’ firm/company/ Guilt by association with Miller is company business empire; Scam companies and inferred. Shoddy business practices Crooked empire. Accusations are made (delivering at night/ insisting on of staff being violent’ or bodgers. There bankers draft/using misleading Table II. Emphasis on rule-breaking (continued) Rule-breaking Media strategy Descriptor Outcome and legitimacy is mention of unfair contracts; and of adverts / having an appalling after- staff using appalling business tactics sales service) are emphasised. This is a such as demanding money up front in clever journalistic ruse in that it is an the Devils Kitchen. These brand the indirect attack and less libellous company as cheats, cheating punters by operating as A Cut Price Company 251 Criminality The sensational headlines – Kidnapper The mention of Police Probe signals to turned kitchen retailer; Crooked readers that Miller is no ordinary Director back where he belongs behind businessman and is not to be trusted. bars; Sent down and of pleading guilty He makes his money on the edges of and Banged-up paint a picture of the law. The message is clear that criminality as do the bold headlines – Miller has criminal connections and is £66,000 cash seized by customs; Booted not a man of business. Mention of out of Czech Republic for bad behaviour. arson attacks and dawn raids seal the Miller is likened to the British actor deal particularly when we read that Vinnie Jones (and to violence and the this notorious trader is linked to gangster aesthetic) and is accused of criminal economy. This stratagem is having verbally abused his drivers and based on arguments negating moral of threatening staff with a sword to legitimacy but ultimately is a settle a score. He is dubbed The normative change device in that it Clogfather (a play on the Godfather and influences one’s perception and is Rough Working Class themes) incredibly damaging in that even if the victim sues the newspaper then the reader may never read about the apology or retraction Table II.

particularly in the early stages, was very aggressive in its approach to costs and company growth: • his policy of sourcing cheap parts in China, Poland, Russia, Italy, Turkey; Mongolia, Tibet, Spain, South Africa, Germany, Dubai and India caused problems of logistics Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. and quality control; • his policy of drastically undercutting competitors lead to stresses; • his concentration upon sales at the expense of customer satisfaction; • the rapid expansion of his company causing stress, including capital acquisition and setting up and liquidating a series of companies; • the diverse nature of his portfolio of foreign acquisitions including granite mines in Northern China and oak forests in Inner Mongolia are difficult to manage and keep him away from his British interests; and • his policy of demanding cash on delivery, as part of operating in a low cost environment, appeared mercenary. This led to complaints from unhappy customers, which in turn led to press and media scrutiny, to the point where there was serious attention from the Office of Fair Trading. Alongside this largely negative portrayal from the press, Miller’s appearance in two hard-hitting television documentaries again raised his media profile significantly, but in a way that increased controversy and notoriety. These were “The Kitchen Gangster” IJEBR Media Outcome and media narrative in 21,2 strategy Media claims relation to assigned legitimacy Veiled For example, describing Millers These descriptors infer suspicion and aspersions business as the fastest growing boastfulness and undermine positive independent kitchen company in Britain statements casting aspersions and 252 or […] appears to be a successful young negative assertions. They are businessman;orOn the surface he pragmatically designed statements appeared every inch the successful with an undertone of moral judgment businessman; and Miller wants his penned by the journalists to appeal to business to be a national household their audience of sensible working and name middle class readers. These invoke the hubris storylines used to neutralise entrepreneurial ambition. The veiled message is this is too good to be true and that there must be a downside. None of the accusations are libellous Ridicule and Referred to as A veiled counter argument insinuating character The Kitchen King a dodgy/criminal persona. Again these slurs The Robin Hood of bathrooms are not libellous statements but when A rough tough hard talking bloke used frequently create a bad Not short of a bob or two impression with readers. Cleverly the Not a man to mess with slurs can be read two ways – either as A tough talking kitchen boss ridicule or as a veiled but grudging An infamous entrepreneur form of respect A one-time market stall operator The Miller is described as – Wealthy;a The use of business terminology is entrepreneur Businessman; Director, Company-Boss; used to legitimise or destabilise a Accusation Tycoon, Self-made-businessman/ story. When used in juxtaposition with millionaire; and Multi-Million-Pound- criminal metaphors they introduce entrepreneur. He is linked to ridicule. Thus his reputed £20 million entrepreneurial mythology via being annual turnover is reframed as a silent Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. associated with Arthur Daley and Del- accusation. The veiled storyline is that Boy entrepreneurs stereotypes; of Miller is a businessman and is Raking in a fortune (Midas); Being a therefore suspect flamboyant-boss and buccaneer;A misunderstood-entrepreneur who regards himself as an honest risk-taker Parochialism A Northern entrepreneur Local, thus suspect. Again, none of this A British entrepreneur is libellous or slanderous. It sells A Ramsbottom entrepreneur/ newspapers by appealing to pre- businessman existing moral and cognitive schemas Controversial Ripponden businessman relating to how we perceive entrepreneurs and the successful Selective Everybody thinks I am a gangster […] These make Miller appear foolish and Table III. quotes but I run a good business unstable and accentuate his use of Journalistic I’ve been in prisons in six countries profanity; his explosive temper and Strategies for I’m not dishonest only violent disregard for accepted business destabilising connections to legitimacy (continued) Rule-breaking Media Outcome and media narrative in strategy Media claims relation to assigned legitimacy and legitimacy He thinks I’m this dumb ******** conventions. Miller has been likened to who’s just cruised in on the banana boat the British Chef Gordon Ramsay and strolled out of his five star hotel this (presumably because both have a morning with a hangover - the last thing penchant for expletives). Again these 253 I want to be doing is strolling about this are pretty safe statements from a yard in my Armani suit and my Gucci journalistic perspective shoes,- Well, unfortunately, pal, you’ve got Mr Scumbag from Rochdale who doesn’t give a toss about the **** around him Table III.

and “Brits get Rich in China”. The Kitchen Gangster filmed Miller as he awaited trial for breaching an Office of Fair Trading “Stop Now Order”. It was the second programme in BBC 2’s “Notorious” series (BBC2, 2003), described by the BBC Press Office as “edgy and intimate portraits of four men whose desire to make money lets them ride roughshod over other people’slives”. The series producers Robert Davis and Alistair Cook presented the documentaries as a modern morality tale of how controversial businessmen make money on the edges of law, centring on the rule-breaking aspects of Miller’s behaviour. On the eve of this documentary being shown, press accounts report Miller being arrested for kidnapping, and of escaping custody and fleeing to China. In the programme, Miller was described as one of Britain’s most notorious rogue traders, and Miller admits that when he started out in 1995 his kitchens were basically a “bag of shit”. The Channel 4 documentary “Brits Get Rich in China” was a serious analytical documentary, part of a series following four different entrepreneurs who were trying, with different levels of success, to take advantage of trading conditions in China. One episode followed Miller on a buying trail as he diligently hunted bargains and extended control of over his supply Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. chain. While driving hard bargains, as we might expect a sound entrepreneur to do, he again demonstrated rule-breaking activity to achieve his aims: unapproved use of the Olympic logo for example.

Vance Miller: more positive accounts It is pertinent to question why there was so much negativity against a highly successful local entrepreneur, given that the case against him eventually collapsed, concomitant with suspension and eventual dismissal of the Head of the Oldham Trading Standards Office who took the case forward. The kitchen business is a difficult one, requiring the sourcing of materials from international supply chains, then the customisation by different tradesmen (carpenters, electricians, plumbers, gas experts) across unpredictable customer environments. Miller was quick to articulate that his more acceptable competitors were generating an equal number of complaints. To answer his critics in the press Vance Miller initiated a web site mirroring tabloid newspaper headline style: • Trading Standards U-Turn: “50,000 complaints” Down to 2 per month! • Internet forum gagged by Trading Standards: Plot secrets disappear after being revealed online. IJEBR • Channel 4 Director finds Oldham Trading Standards “Misleading”. 21,2 • Trade press get the inside story about that Dawn Raid at Oldham Kitchens. • Real Business ( July/August 2007 Issue): The full Vance Miller story. Trading Standards admit they got it wrong. Here, Miller (or his representatives) presents an alternative interpretation of events, 254 for example in the article entitled “Trade press get the inside story about that Dawn Raid at Oldham Kitchens”. This piece claims to tell the full story and the true motivation behind the November morning police raid at the mill. Using sarcasm, Miller complains about the level of force deployed (over 100 officers) which he describes as “enough manpower to deal with a major terrorist threat”. The gist of the story is that there is a conspiracy which has yet to be revealed. Miller further complains of a second police swoop in May 2007. The article mentions a Channel 4 documentary, aired on 28 May 2007 and describes Miller as an “unstoppable Oldham entrepreneur”. Miller highlights a letter from the respected programme maker Alastair Cook, who reports concerns about persistent misreporting that continues to appear in newspapers. In this open letter, Cook accused Oldham Trading Standards and newspapers of reporting on Miller’sstoryin“a manner and style designed to mislead the readers of these articles into believing that Notorious showed Vance Miller in a bad light, when it in fact shows quite the opposite”. Cook explained that he expected to find a scam artist but came to the realisation that Miller was in fact “an ambitious and driven businessman”, albeit an unorthodox one who favours tracksuits to suits. Cook argues that the press headlines surrounding Miller make good copy for journalists, which they perpetuate as damning articles without checking their facts. Cook argues that people accept the accounts as fact, despite inaccuracies and that “new” articles are based on press clippings of old articles. Cook accuses the press of being misleading and lazy. A further positive account appears in Real Business entitled “The full Vance Miller story” in the July/August issue in 2007. It contained an interview with Miller, in which he seeks to explain some of the behind-the-scenes machinations that led Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. to what he describes as an unwarranted fishing expedition by police and the accompanying leaks of misinformation to the press that seek to justify them. Further, journalist Charles Orton-Jones (2007) reported positive feedback from customers and takes credit for being one of the first journalists to actually see Vance Miller as a “bloody good entrepreneur”! Orton-Jones asks “[…]ishereallyawrong ’un? After all, he’s built a £100m business selling kitchens to some of the biggest retailers in the world”. From a “deeper analysis” of the supportive press coverage it is possible to list personal traits which are attributed to Miller by comparing and fitting the emerging themes into the three legitimacy building categories of Suchman (1995). These themes include: (1) Behavioural – stubbornness; a quick temper; aggressiveness; rule breaking behaviour; hard working. (2) Communicational – straight talking and using a four-letter vocabulary. (3) Person or personality centred – likeable; infectiously enthusiastic; positive comment regarding his “bodybuilder’s” physique. (4) Drive – entrepreneurial nous; an unstoppable force; hard working and sharp. It is also possible for an individual to invoke counter rhetorical strategies to reclaim a Rule-breaking tarnished reputation as Miller did. See Table IV for an explanatory list. and legitimacy

Discussion We argue that the public discourse on Miller, identified above, is indicative of the tensions between rule breaking and legitimacy. We have shown a combative discourse conducted publically, where neither side explain their position on morality, or define it. 255 Miller, of course, has to artfully navigate towards success in a complex and competitive business, whereas his detractors in the media have only to sell newspapers and steer clear of the libel laws. Miller is demonstrably successful, economically. He admits to breaking rules, both in his early life, and in his early business practice to achieve economic success. The explanatory discourse on Miller’s blog sets out his interpretation

Ethical Outcome and self-narrative explanation in strategy Storied claims relation to claimed legitimacy Self- Living a simple life Miller portrays himself as a humble man aligned deprecation Not driven by profit to entrepreneurial ideology. These claims are Claims never to have owned a car based on Suchman’s category of pragmatic Buys socks at £2 for 3 pairs legitimation and designed to appeal to his own Plays cricket with his son vanity and sense of self-worth albeit he may be communicating value to a localised business institution in the form of his entrepreneur peer group. The claims are all values based and are good examples of invoking the category of cultural capital De Clercq and Voronov (2009a) as a strategy for claiming legitimacy Symbolic/ Spurns yachts, fancy houses, planes He is proud of his £48,000 mortgage. Again these ideological or big medallions claims which emanate from Miller himself are pragmatic legitimation claims but are also tinged with moral undertones thus attempting to claim Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. moral legitimacy within his peer group. This is reminiscent of invoking symbolic capital as suggested by De Clercq and Voronov (2009a) Philanthropic Speaks of opening an orphanage Does work with orphans and this claim spans both the moral and cognitive dimensions of legitimacy building in that it appeals to a wider audience of humanity than the local or national business sectors Conflicting Claiming to be essentially honest yet Claims of humbleness run contrary to his self- imagery apparently revelling in his notoriety expressed moniker The Kitchen Gangster and his tough guy image. This is also reminiscent of the claim of De Clercq and Voronov (2009b) in relation to the legitimacy paradox faced by entrepreneurs trying to align conflicting or multiple legitimacy storylines. Miller in trying to neutralise his past once made the throw away remark that he was “The Kitchen Gangster”. This flippant remark has come back to “haunt” him as Table IV. the press and media “hound” him with the label Legitimation (see Smith, 2005 for a discussion of the hounding Strategies to mechanism in entrepreneurial narratives) counter bad press IJEBR of laws and rules that he encountered in achieving a set of entrepreneurial goals. Yet 21,2 despite this success, and explanations, Miller’s earlier rule-breaking has not been forgiven, and overlooked, in the construction of an heroic identity (Brenkert, 2009), but has instead been highlighted and amplified, as past criminality was connected to unethical trading practice. It is still unclear as to why this happened, if his business was no better, or worse, than similar businesses. Was he just bad at basic business public 256 relations and reputation management, failing to “artfully navigate” the situation (De Clercq and Voronov)? He admits to not playing by the accepted rules of business and sums up his business philosophy as being –“If you don’t give a f***, you can never be beaten”. Miller himself hints at a local conspiracy surrounding planning and development ambitions around his Maple Mill site in Oldham. If, as Clarke and Holt (2010, p. 320) suggest, entrepreneurs self-legislate, relying instead on their own ability to continually judge business life in spite of prevailing opinion and values, then Miller has surely misjudged his direction, though not to the point of business failure. However, we would argue that he has fallen foul of the legitimacy paradox explained by De Clercq and Voronov (2009a, b, c), whereby he has been unable to bridge public perception of him as being untrustworthy. He seems therefore, to exist in a different symbolic space (Clarke and Holt, 2010) to his counterparts who are either portrayed in a heroic manner in the media, or hounded as they fail. In an article in the UK’s Daily Express in 2010, Miller is quoted as saying “I played along with the whole Kitchen Gangster thing”,hesays.“It actually helped my business at the time but I want to get rid of that rough diamond image now”. This fits in with the work of Down and Warren (2008) who reported on the mythicizing of the entrepreneur and the construction of entrepreneurial identity. Thus, if the entrepreneur is seen through a hagiographic fog as a near mythical being it is difficult to reconcile this with narratives which express a contradictory element of criminality, or even, for Down and Warren (2008), sheer ordinariness. Miller has patently become a victim of his own mythicizing and legend building as well as of media misrepresentation. He has been figuratively been “hoisted by his own petard”. As Brenkert (2009) comments, forgiveness, and re-entry into the mythology occurs when what was perceived as wrong is re-interpreted as part of a new socially Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. acceptable norm. Perhaps Miller’s tendency to overplay his “tough guy” image was unhelpful. Miller’s legitimation strategy is framed by a “street based” masculine doxa (Catano, 2001) typical of struggling ex-textile towns in working class northern England, rather than by heroic notions of enterprise.

Conclusions, limitations and implications We hope that our “telling or re-telling” of the media portrayal of Miller’s entrepreneurial antics and escapades is engaging and convincing and has begun the process of unravelling how entrepreneurs engage in legitimacy building strategies, to counteract, where necessary, unfortunate media-inspired perceptions of them. We add to the small, but important, literature that discusses the hero-villain paradox, and the difficulties of artfully navigating (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009a, b, c) the fine line between the two. In doing so, we generate deeper insight into the trajectory of the “falls from grace” referred to by Smith and Anderson (2004) and Smith and McElwee (2011) when navigation fails. Given the media interest in such stories, exploration of this paradox would be a fruitful theme for other researchers to follow. Further, from our close reading of the Miller story, we can learn a lot about rule-breaking and legitimacy in the context of entrepreneurship. In particular, this paper has illustrated how Miller used stories aligned to pragmatism; appeals to culturally accepted moralities; and stories which fit accepted and expected normative behaviours in line with the legitimation Rule-breaking strategies proposed by Suchman (1995). In his life-time, Miller has broken the rules, and and legitimacy admitted to it. However, the media have ensured that this behaviour was constantly exposed in the media spotlight. Despite a spirited fightback, he is still characterised as the Kitchen Gangster, but yet trades successfully, despite many setbacks. Miller is now domiciled in China (to escape the bad publicity) and perhaps unfairly, his biography is sold as a crime story and located in bookstores with gangster books. If, as Harris et al. 257 (2009) suggests, we need to reconcile rule-breaking and path-breaking, towards an ethics of entrepreneurship, then Miller’s distinctive position case may be instructive as to where some boundaries might lie, and again this would a fruitful area for other researchers to study in a systematic manner. One might also question an ethics of journalism in regard to entrepreneurs, particularly those with a criminal past, but that is another study for scholars of communications and ethics. This study is limited in that we did not have an opportunity to consult or interview Vance Miller himself. Obviously, this is one of our future research aspirations and will form the basis of a future book chapter. Moreover, it is also an incomplete interpretation since we have not yet canvassed the views of the journalists involved in the saga. Again, studies to establish the extent to which the media representation results from biases or merely journalistic practices would be valuable. A missing voice in this interpretation is that of Oldham Trading Standards, who have been cast in the role of pantomime villain. The conduct of the department and the investigation has been called into question but to date no journalist, nor academic has sought to establish their perspective on the case. This is an omission we hope to rectify in the near future; more widely, the role of regulation in studies of legitimacy could be developed further. We also plan to extend the study to consider other worked examples of entrepreneurs vilified in the press such as Kim.Com and Nicholas VanHoogstraten. We believe that in our case, perhaps much of the Miller saga can be explained by recourse to analysing it through a theoretical framework of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1990; Smith, 2010) in which both parties engage in posing and posturing to present their value based world-views in a masculinised rhetorical duel. This aspect is also Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. worthy of further academic exploration more generally. In telling his own story to counteract the negativity of media coverage, Miller was obviously enacting his own ethical codes, not those of wider society. Indeed, Miller was most likely playing to locally legitimised socio-economic contexts, in a normative sense. It is frequently said that no publicity is bad publicity, but courting notoriety and an adopted “gangster aesthetic” (as in the Kitchen Gangster and Notorious TV programmes) might be an exception to that rule. Media constructs are created and viewed in social spaces. Duarte et al. (2005, p. 6) point out that narratives by their very nature are representations making interpretation inevitable. Whilst we therefore acknowledge that methodologically we could be criticised for using a methodology based on our reading of observations made in the media by others, we firmly believe that it is in fact a “strength” of narrative analysis. Nevertheless, our framework is tentative and further qualitative research on media representation of entrepreneurs, particularly those with criminal or controversial back grounds, is needed to ensure robustness. This could be of use to both aspirant entrepreneurs and those involved in entrepreneur training and development. It would be helpful to conduct a number of related studies into the Miller saga (or similar cases) using different conceptual and theoretical constructs to build a more layered and nuanced explanation. Further studies in this area would be of interest to scholars of entrepreneurship interested in IJEBR entrepreneurial identity and legitimacy. Finally this work outlines the need for more 21,2 research into the manner in which legality/illegality (or the appearance of the same) is negotiated in the discourse on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial identity and in particular entrepreneurial legitimacy.

Note 258 1. In this paper the use of the word “criminal” refers to activities that have attracted the attention of the law as evidenced by comments in press coverage and do not imply or suggest criminal activity on the part of Miller by the authors of this paper. Nevertheless, we acknowledge and understand the importance of the argument that recognises that “criminal” is a term which is only appropriate once there has been a conviction. Things coming to the attention of the police (“the law”?) are not crimes unless it is followed by conviction in a court of law. Likewise we make no attempt to define our usage of terms such as morality and illegality.

References Amernic, J. and Craig, R. (2006), CEO Speak: The Language of Corporate Leadership, McGill Queens University Press, London. Anderson, A.R. and Smith, R. (2007), “The moral space in entrepreneurship: an exploration of ethical imperatives and the moral legitimacy of being enterprising”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 479-497. Anderson, A.R. and Warren, L. (2011), “The entrepreneur as hero and jester: enacting the entrepreneurial discourse”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 589-609. Atherton, A. (2004), “Unbundling enterprise and entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 121-127. Baron, R.A. and Shane, S.A. (2007), Entrepreneurship: A Process Perspective,Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH. Bouchard, M. and Dion, C.B. (2009), “Growers and facilitators: probing the role of entrepreneurs in the development of the cannabis cultivation industry”, Journal of Small Business and Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. Entrepreneurship, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 25-38. Boyle, R. (2008), “From troubleshooter to the apprentice: the changing face of British television”, Media Culture and Society, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 415-424. Boyle, R. and Magor, M. (2008), “A nation of entrepreneurs? Television, social change and the rise of the entrepreneur”, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics,Vol.4 No. 2, pp. 125-144. Breit, E. (2010), “On the (Re)construction of corruption in the media: a critical discursive approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 619-635. Brenkert, G. (2009), “Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 448-464. Brown, A.D. (2005), “Making sense of the collapse of barings bank”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 1579-1604. Busenitz, L.W., Gomez, C. and Spencer, J.W. (2000), “Country institutional profiles: unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 994-1003. Catano, J.V. (2001), Ragged Dicks: Masculinity, Steel, and the Rhetoric of the Self-Made Man, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL. Clarke, J. and Holt, R. (2010), “Reflective judgement: understanding entrepreneurship as ethical practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 317-331. Connell, R.W. (1990), “An iron man: the body and some contradictions of hegemonic masculinity”, Rule-breaking in Messner, M. and Sabo, D. (Eds), Sport, Men and the Gender Order, Human Kinetics and legitimacy Books, Champaign, IL, pp. 83-95. Cowton, C.J. (1998), “The use of secondary data in business ethics research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 423-434. De Clercq, D. and Voronov, M. (2009a), “The role of cultural and symbolic capital in entrepreneurs’ ability to meet expectations about conformity and innovation”, Journal of 259 Small Business Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 398-420. De Clercq, D. and Voronov, M. (2009b), “Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 395-419. De Clercq, D. and Voronov, M. (2009c), “The role of domination in newcomers’ legitimation as entrepreneurs”, Organization, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 799-827. Doolin, B. (2002), “Enterprise discourse, professional identity and the organizational control of hospital clinicians”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 369-390. Down, S. and Warren, L. (2008), “Constructing narratives of enterprise: clichés and entrepreneurial self-identity”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,Vol.14No.1, pp. 4-23. Downing, S. (2005), “The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative and dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 185-204. Drakopoulou-Dodd, S. and Anderson, A.R. (2007), “Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 341-360. Duarte, F. (2006), “Spivs, shonks and sharks: the HIH collapse as a moral tale of corporate capitalism”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 282-290. Duarte, F., McAllister, G. and Gray, J. (2005), “Spivs, shonks and ruthless sharks: using discourse analysis to investigate identity construction in the HIH narrative”, 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference – Talk and Text: Rhetoric, Reality and Research Stream, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 4-6 July. Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. Everett, J., Neu, D. and Rahaman, A.S. (2006), “The global fight against corruption: a foucaultian, virtues-ethics framing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 1-12. Fielding, N.G. and Fielding, J.L. (2000), “Resistance and adaptation to criminal identity: using secondary analysis to evaluate classic studies of crime and deviance”, Sociology, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 671-689. Frith, K. and McElwee, G. (2008a), “The entrepreneurial wide boy: a modern morality tale”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 80-93. Frith, K. and McElwee, G. (2008b), “An emergent entrepreneur? A story of a drug dealer in a restricted entrepreneurial environment”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 270-286. Fuller, T. and Tian, Y. (2006), “Social and symbolic capital and responsible entrepreneurship: an empirical investigation of sme narratives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 287-304. Gill, R. (2012), “If you’re struggling to survive day-to-day’: class optimism and contradiction in entrepreneurial discourse”, Organization, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 50-67. Glasser, B. (1965), “The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis”, Social Problems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 436-445. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Pelican Books, Harmondsworth. IJEBR Guthey, E., Clark, T. and Jackson, B. (2009), Demystifying Business Celebrity, Edward Elgar, 21,2 Cheltenham. Harris, J.D., Sapienza, H.J. and Bowie, N.E. (2009), “Ethics and entrepreneurship”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 407-418. Heath, J. (2008), “Business ethics and moral motivation: a criminological perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 595-614. 260 Hermans, H.J.M. (2004), “Introduction: the dialogical self in a global and digital age”, Identity, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 297-320. Jones, R., Latham, J. and Betta, M. (2008), “Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurial identity”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 330-345. Kimmell, M.S. (1993), “Invisible masculinity”, Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 28-35. Kuemmerle, W. (2002), “A test for the fainthearted”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 5, p. 134. Kuratko, D.F. (2008), Entrepreneurship Theory, Process, Practice, Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH. Lewis, P. and Llewellyn, N. (2004), “Introduction to special issue: enterprise and entrepreneurial identity”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,Vol.5No.1,pp.5-8. Ljunggren, E. and Alsos, G.A. (2001), “Media expressions of male and female entrepreneurs”, Babson College-Kauffman Conference, Jonkoping University, Jonkoping, 14-16 June. Longenecker, J.G., McKinney, J.A. and Moore, C.W. (1988), “Egoism and independence: entrepreneurial ethics”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 64-72. Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001), “Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy and the acquisition of resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 Nos 6/7, pp. 545-564. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, London. Newton, J. (2009), Vance Miller – Kitchen Gangster? An Investigation, Springer Books, Bedford. Nicholson, L. and Anderson, A.R. (2005), “News and nuances of the entrepreneurial myth and metaphor: linguistic games in entrepreneurial sense-making”, Entrepreneurship Theory

Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 153-173. Ogbor, J. (2000), “Mythicising and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology – critique of entrepreneurial studies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 605-635. Orton-Jones, C. (2007), “I’ll have what Vance Miller is having”, Real Business Cover Feature, 30 August, available at: www.charlesortonjones.com/articles.html (accessed 12 January 2013). Panaviotopoulous, P.I. (1996), “Challenging orthodoxies: cypriot entrepreneurs in the London garment industry”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 437-460. Platt, J. (1981), “Evidence and proof in documentary research”, Sociological Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-52. Radu, M. and Redien-Collet, R. (2008), “The social representation of entrepreneurs in the French press”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 259-298. Rehn, A. and Taalas, S. (2004), “Znakomstva I Svyazi!’ (acquaintances and connections): Blat, the Soviet Union and mundane entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 235-250. Rindova, V.P., Pollock, T.G. and Hayward, M.L.A. (2006), “Celebrity firms: the social construction of market popularity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 50-71. Scollon, R. (2007), Analyzing Public Discourse: Discourse Analysis in the Making of Public Policy, Routledge, London. Scott, J. (1990), A Matter of Record, Documentary Sources in Social Research, Polity Press, Rule-breaking Cambridge. and legitimacy Smith, R. (2003), “Entrepreneurial identity and bad boy iconology”, presented at an Entrepreneurship Research Seminar, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, April. Smith, R. (2005), “The fabrication of entrepreneurial fable: a biographical analysis”, Journal of Private Equity, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 8-19. Smith, R. (2010), “Masculinity, doxa and the institutionalisation of entrepreneurial identity in the 261 novel cityboy”, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,Vol.2No.1,pp.27-48. Smith, R. and Anderson, A.R. (2003), “Conforming non conformists: a semiotic analysis of entrepreneurial identity”, paper presented at the Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Boston, MA, 5-7 June. Smith, R. and Anderson, A.R. (2004), “The devil is in the e-tale: form and structure in the entrepreneurial narrative”, in Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C. (Eds), Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship: A Second Movements in Entrepreneurship Book, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 125-143. Smith, R. and Christou, M.L. (2009), “Extracting value from their environment: some observations on pimping and prostitution as entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 69-84. Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2011), “After the fall: developing a conceptual script-based model of shame in narratives of entrepreneurs in crisis!”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 31 Nos 1/2, pp. 91-109. Steyaert, C. (2007), “Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 453-477. Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610. Swail, J., Down, S. and Kautonen, T. (2013), “Examining the effect of ‘entre-tainment’ as a cultural influence on entrepreneurial intentions”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 859-875.

Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262. Warren, L. (2007), “The establishment strikes back? The life and times of Takafumi Horie”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 261-270. Welter, F. (2011), “Contextualizing entrepreneurship – conceptual challenges and ways forward”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 165-184. Wesley, J. (2010), “Qualitative document analysis in political science”, T2PP Workshop, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 9-10 April. Williams, C.C. and Nadin, S. (2010), “Entrepreneurship and the informal economy: an overview”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 361-378. Zhang, A. and Arvey, R. (2009), “Rule breaking in adolescence and entrepreneurial status: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 436-447.

Further reading Down, S. (2006), Narratives of Enterprise: Crafting Entrepreneurial Self-Identity in a Small Firm, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Miller, V. (2010), Quotation from Anon, “Businessman is cleared of fraud: no case to answer, ruled judge”, Halifax Courier, 14 January, available at: www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/ calderdale/businessman-is-cleared-of-fraud-no-case-to-answer-ruled-judge-1-1944014 (accessed 7 November 2013). IJEBR Olaison, L. and Sørensen, B.M. (2014), “The abject of entrepreneurship: failure, fiasco, fraud”, 21,2 International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 193-211. Smith, R. (2004), “Rural rogues: a case story on the ‘smokies’ trade”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Behavioural Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 277-294. Warren, L. (2005), “Images of entrepreneurship: still searching for the hero?”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 221-229. 262 Web references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Miller (accessed 7 November 2013). www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/12_december/04/bbc2_winter_factual. shtml#notorious (accessed 26 February 2015). www.vance-miller.co.uk/ (accessed 7 November 2013).

Corresponding author Dr Lorraine Warren can be contacted at: [email protected] Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] This article has been cited by:

1. Yi Qu, Ting Qu, Yaoan Wu. 2015. The role of regional formal institutions and foreign direct investment in innovation in Chinese enterprises. Asia Pacific Business Review 1-17. [CrossRef] Int Jrnl of Ent Behav & Res 2015.21:243-262.